Eritrea

On the sanctions placed on Eritrea being levied because of its problems with Somalia and Djibouti, and not on Ethiopia

PM Meles: In my opinion, the sanctions imposed on Eritrea have two implications. First and foremost, it reveals the international community’s realisation of the provoking strategy, illegality and destructiveness of the Eritrean government. Secondly (provided that the measures are effected to the fullest), they may impose restrictions to … prevent it from carrying out its destructive aims.
 

Three major measures are pointed out. The first is an arms embargo. Second, military and political officials in the Eritrean government have been prohibited from international movement. I do not suppose this ban will affect Eritrea’s diplomatic interactions as there were none to begin with. …

Finally, it has been decided to freeze the overseas’ assets of the Eritrean government and its various organs. If adhered to strictly, this specific measure is the principal of all three measures in managing the Eritrean government’s provoking strategy. This is so, since evidence suggests that such remittance constitutes around a quarter of Eritrea’s national income. The severance of these funds is believed to land a blow to the capital the government needs to achieve its strategy of unrest.

If the sanction is carried out as a major priority issue, it is considered sufficient. It was put in place based primarily on the actions of the Eritrean government against Somalia and Djibouti. 
 

The belief on the Ethiopian government’s part was that Eritrea’s strategies of causing perpetual unrest in Ethiopia are not of international magnitude and that Ethiopia can deal with the situation by itself. That was why the issue was not pursued in the international arena. In addition, there is still an unresolved border demarcation issue between the two countries.
 

Under these conditions, the Ethiopian government chose not to further vent the actions of the Eritrean government at the deliberations in light of the disadvantageous merits it carries.
 

On Libya’s vote against the sanction and China’s abstention
 

PM Meles: The Chinese stance comes as no surprise. It is well known, in the Security Council, that China does not endorse the sanctioning of any country. This is its long standing position. Often times, it uses its veto power not to have a nation sanctioned. Rarely however, does it abstain to let such sanctions pass. China forfeited its veto power and allowed the passing of the decision.
 

What was bewildering is the case of Libya. The decision to place sanctions on Eritrea was made at a conference in Sirte, Libya with the Libyan president presiding as chairperson. Although he was against the decision, a vast majority of the African Union (member nations), however, felt strongly about instating the sanctions. Libya finally gave in, and the decision passed as one of the Union’s. What is peculiar is Libya’s vote in contradiction to the Union’s decision.
 

On Ethiopia’s diplomatic role regarding the Security Council’s decision

PM Meles: Ethiopia is not a member of the council, so we did not partake in the final stage. However, the notion was initiated by IGAD from the beginning. Ethiopia’s stance was one of the strengthening and supporting whatever IGAD stood for. It was then passed on to the AU, at which stage Ethiopia’s stance remained strong with regard to the imposition of the sanctions.

On the sanctions placed on Eritrea being levied because of its problems with Somalia and Djibouti, and not on Ethiopia
 

PM Meles: In my opinion, the sanctions imposed on Eritrea have two implications. First and foremost, it reveals the international community’s realisation of the provoking strategy, illegality and destructiveness of the Eritrean government. Secondly (provided that the measures are effected to the fullest), they may impose restrictions to … prevent it from carrying out its destructive aims.

Three major measures are pointed out. The first is an arms embargo. Second, military and political officials in the Eritrean government have been prohibited from international movement. I do not suppose this ban will affect Eritrea’s diplomatic interactions as there were none to begin with. …
 

Finally, it has been decided to freeze the overseas’ assets of the Eritrean government and its various organs. If adhered to strictly, this specific measure is the principal of all three measures in managing the Eritrean government’s provoking strategy. This is so, since evidence suggests that such remittance constitutes around a quarter of Eritrea’s national income. The severance of these funds is believed to land a blow to the capital the government needs to achieve its strategy of unrest.

If the sanction is carried out as a major priority issue, it is considered sufficient. It was put in place based primarily on the actions of the Eritrean government against Somalia and Djibouti. 
 

The belief on the Ethiopian government’s part was that Eritrea’s strategies of causing perpetual unrest in Ethiopia are not of international magnitude and that Ethiopia can deal with the situation by itself. That was why the issue was not pursued in the international arena. In addition, there is still an unresolved border demarcation issue between the two countries.
 

Under these conditions, the Ethiopian government chose not to further vent the actions of the Eritrean government at the deliberations in light of the disadvantageous merits it carries.
 

On Libya’s vote against the sanction and China’s abstention

PM Meles: The Chinese stance comes as no surprise. It is well known, in the Security Council, that China does not endorse the sanctioning of any country. This is its long standing position. Often times, it uses its veto power not to have a nation sanctioned. Rarely however, does it abstain to let such sanctions pass. China forfeited its veto power and allowed the passing of the decision.

What was bewildering is the case of Libya. The decision to place sanctions on Eritrea was made at a conference in Sirte, Libya with the Libyan president presiding as chairperson. Although he was against the decision, a vast majority of the African Union (member nations), however, felt strongly about instating the sanctions. Libya finally gave in, and the decision passed as one of the Union’s. What is peculiar is Libya’s vote in contradiction to the Union’s decision.

On Ethiopia’s diplomatic role regarding the Security Council’s decision

PM Meles: Ethiopia is not a member of the council, so we did not partake in the final stage. However, the notion was initiated by IGAD from the beginning. Ethiopia’s stance was one of the strengthening and supporting whatever IGAD stood for. It was then passed on to the AU, at which stage Ethiopia’s stance remained strong with regard to the imposition of the sanctions.

Climate

On a two degree Celsius temperature increase agreement causing 3.5°C increase in Africa; his telephone conversation with President Barak Obama and on the lack of democratic procedure at the Copenhagen summit.
 

PM Meles: Since it is a negotiation, everyone lays down their maximum and their minimum goals. It is within these poles that each party negotiates. All countries have not gained their ultimate goals. There are some who did not attain their minimum set goals, especially small island states. The major goal of these states was keeping [the increase in] global warming at bay at 1.5°C.

According to my judgment, Africa has attained an outcome [between the minimum and ultimate goals] similar to the latter. With regard to monetary goals we have attained what we set out for – that being 100 billion dollars per year from the year 2020 and 10 billion dollars per year to start in the coming few weeks for three years. That was our goal.

The annual 10 billion dollars to be issued starting 2010 the coming January, was what was asked to be allotted overall out of which, 40pc was requested on African’s behalf. The 10 billion dollars is more or less made available, but the portions cannot be determined just yet.

The African Union had … a stance that set the increase [in global temperature] at two degrees Celsius. The stance was endorsed by the heads of state …

Based on the leaders’ decisions, the committee gathered in Addis Abeba and set … a minimum goal of 18 billion to 23 billion dollars and a maximum goal of 60 billion to 70 billion dollars based on analyses by African ministers.

Therefore, we stood our ground on the two degrees Celsius increase on global warming as decided upon by African leaders. And that too was found to be acceptable. However a goal for less than two degrees Celcius increase has not been set either by Africa, or by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC comprises of thousands of scientists from all over the globe that conducted the study and forwarded alternatives for decision making. They were awarded Nobel peace prizes.
 

They have reasons when they set [the increase] limit at two degrees Celcius. They never imply that two degrees Celcius increase has no problems associated with it. …. To achieve a 1.5°C is similar to asking China and India to stop carbon emissions. In other words, it is seriously hampering their economic growth.
 

On reaction of African leaders to the outcome of the negotiations
 

I flew to Copenhagen via France and England, and arrived in Copenhagen late in the evening. In France, I issued a joint declaration with the French president. This declaration was in full support of our negotiation stance – which I finally presented at the summit. The main reason for my detour was to acquire French and British backing. After the declaration was issued, some ambassadors representing African nations, and ministers were displeased and were issuing statements all around about having adopted another standpoint.

Afterwards we gathered the ministers on the day after and explained the issue to them in detail, after which they issued a statement agreeing to our stance in Copenhagen. This stance, adopted by African leaders, could not be altered at ministerial or chancery levels.
 

On Jeffrey Sachs, an intellectual guru to the Prime Minister, claiming that Africa got an empty promise from Copenhagen
 

I can understand his qualms on non delivery of promised aid money. We have qualms about it too. During the negotiations [in Copenhagen], one point of focus was this promise issue. [Sachs] is an American who is sorry about the stance the US adopted. I do not object to his views. However, I do not suppose he expects me to support his ideas all the time, and I do not expect him to support mine. Although I understand his stance I don not take it to be 100pc right.
 

The agreement in Copenhagen was not an empty promise. An additional mechanism was forwarded at the summit so that the agreement would not be just another promise. This was placement of the collected funds into an international reserve, which was partially accepted by the promise givers. This is different from past experiences. The second was the decision to establish an institution that assesses the financial aspects [of the agreement]. That institution in my opinion will follow this through in detail.

On a two degree Celsius temperature increase agreement causing 3.5°C increase in Africa; his telephone conversation with President Barak Obama and on the lack of democratic procedure at the Copenhagen summit.

PM Meles: Since it is a negotiation, everyone lays down their maximum and their minimum goals. It is within these poles that each party negotiates. All countries have not gained their ultimate goals. There are some who did not attain their minimum set goals, especially small island states. The major goal of these states was keeping [the increase in] global warming at bay at 1.5°C.

According to my judgment, Africa has attained an outcome [between the minimum and ultimate goals] similar to the latter. With regard to monetary goals we have attained what we set out for – that being 100 billion dollars per year from the year 2020 and 10 billion dollars per year to start in the coming few weeks for three years. That was our goal.
 

The annual 10 billion dollars to be issued starting 2010 the coming January, was what was asked to be allotted overall out of which, 40pc was requested on African’s behalf. The 10 billion dollars is more or less made available, but the portions cannot be determined just yet.

The African Union had … a stance that set the increase [in global temperature] at two degrees Celsius. The stance was endorsed by the heads of state …

Based on the leaders’ decisions, the committee gathered in Addis Abeba and set … a minimum goal of 18 billion to 23 billion dollars and a maximum goal of 60 billion to 70 billion dollars based on analyses by African ministers.

Therefore, we stood our ground on the two degrees Celsius increase on global warming as decided upon by African leaders. And that too was found to be acceptable. However a goal for less than two degrees Celcius increase has not been set either by Africa, or by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC comprises of thousands of scientists from all over the globe that conducted the study and forwarded alternatives for decision making. They were awarded Nobel peace prizes.

They have reasons when they set [the increase] limit at two degrees Celcius. They never imply that two degrees Celcius increase has no problems associated with it. …. To achieve a 1.5°C is similar to asking China and India to stop carbon emissions. In other words, it is seriously hampering their economic growth.
 

On reaction of African leaders to the outcome of the negotiations
 

I flew to Copenhagen via France and England, and arrived in Copenhagen late in the evening. In France, I issued a joint declaration with the French president. This declaration was in full support of our negotiation stance – which I finally presented at the summit. The main reason for my detour was to acquire French and British backing. After the declaration was issued, some ambassadors representing African nations, and ministers were displeased and were issuing statements all around about having adopted another standpoint.
 

Afterwards we gathered the ministers on the day after and explained the issue to them in detail, after which they issued a statement agreeing to our stance in Copenhagen. This stance, adopted by African leaders, could not be altered at ministerial or chancery levels.
 

On Jeffrey Sachs, an intellectual guru to the Prime Minister, claiming that Africa got an empty promise from Copenhagen

I can understand his qualms on non delivery of promised aid money. We have qualms about it too. During the negotiations [in Copenhagen], one point of focus was this promise issue. [Sachs] is an American who is sorry about the stance the US adopted. I do not object to his views. However, I do not suppose he expects me to support his ideas all the time, and I do not expect him to support mine. Although I understand his stance I don not take it to be 100pc right.

The agreement in Copenhagen was not an empty promise. An additional mechanism was forwarded at the summit so that the agreement would not be just another promise. This was placement of the collected funds into an international reserve, which was partially accepted by the promise givers. This is different from past experiences. The second was the decision to establish an institution that assesses the financial aspects [of the agreement]. That institution in my opinion will follow this through in detail.

Economy

On the first quarter poor performance of foreign trade, risking the government plan, as told to the House by the president, to increase foreign trade by 20pc, and if the annual plan could be revised:

PM Meles: The coming months will bring about a massive turn of events. First is the enormous produce of coffee. … Sesame produce is also massive. Hence, we have not considered a revision of the annual plan.
 

On renunciation of the widely accepted view of GDP as an indicator of economic growth by Joseph Stiglitz (PhD), the economic guru heeded by Meles on matters of economics

PM Meles: I am of the opinion that he is right. GDP is the instrument in place [for measuring economic growth] until now but it is not the best of yardsticks. It was in hopes of finding a better instrument that President Sarkozy set up a panel headed by Stiglitz. Until that happens, however, GDP is the only choice. I myself do not believe that GDP is the only tool out there. That is why we bring up Economic Justice along with GDP performance. Ethiopia’s growth is relatively just; the income distribution is relatively just, we say. It is in relation to this that in social services income poverty is not the only measure of poverty.
 

On the government’s rejection of IMF’s recommendation to the National Bank of Ethiopia regarding the low standard of the auditing mechanisms, regarding the National Bank itself being audited by an internationally recognised auditor.
 

PM Meles: The National Bank has its own sets of regulations for its auditing. Any proposals for an audit outside the bounds of these regulations are unacceptable. However, foreign consultants were summoned to assess its current state. And the bank is carefully undertaking reforming based on the consultants’ recommendations. Therefore, since the assessment and reforms are based on international best practices there are no reasons why we should shift to a new (IMF) direction.
 

On the fear of bank executives to grant credit on fear of going to jail on corruption allegations, and the control of private bank shares by few individuals
 

PM Meles: Banks have manuals, regulations and rules. The rules make it clear who decides on what. Therefore, one option to instil that confidence in these people is promising them that no one will be jailed. But this creates grounds for corruption. What we can tell them is that as long as they operate within the bounds of the rules and regulations nothing may befall them and it is my belief that we are saying this.

Regarding a few people owning large stakes in private banks … the law limits the proportion for a single person’s share at, I think, around two per cent. But as stated, people [acquire more] ownership through concealed ownership by family members. But it is difficult to investigate and obtain conclusive evidence on such matter … as they are entangled in family matters. But having been caught embroiled in such activities is punishable by law in Ethiopia. … However, the regulatory tool of the National Bank is … making these acts illegal. The main regulatory tool is the limit on the amount of loans permissible to share owners.
 

On the claim of alleged VAT violators being set up by customs officials
 

PM Meles: Those who go to prison are those whom the courts have conclusive evidence against. And the best evidence out there is being caught in the act. With special emphasis to VAT, catching the alleged violator in the act is the best thing as compared to compiling evidence against them. The latter is much difficult. So as for those who claim to have been set up, there is no such operation. What the businesspeople in such situation should be concerned with is not why somebody gave them up or why somebody else with a grudge sold them out. If they were to issue a legal receipt in the first place, nobody can give them up or sell them out – grudge or no grudge.

On the government’s import of wheat to stabilise prices
 

The government is preparing to import wheat for a fifth time, and this time in the amount of 300,000tn. But the government always purchases this wheat from only one source. The procurement has always done by one company, AGRIMEX. The person who is always in charge of the procurement is a Sudan based, Greek by the name of Phillipas. Over three billion Birr has been spent on these transactions. Why is this wheat procurement not done in typical government procurement procedure through auctions, just as sugar, fertiliser and the like?

PM Meles: The purchase procedure is through auction and a single person might be the frequent buyer. Although I am not aware of the details of the proceedings, I do not suppose it is undertaken outside the procurement procedures I do not suppose as procurement was carried out under the monitoring of Ministry of Finance involves a large sum of money. I do not suppose the Ministry of Finance goes out of procedure in these purchases.